What we encountered
AI answers that use web search often display citations or links. Those citations are visible and easy to count, which makes them tempting to treat as the explanation for why a firm was named.
But three different things are easily conflated: sources the system retrieved while searching, sources it visibly cited in the answer, and sources that actually influenced the content of the answer. These sets overlap, but they are not the same.
Why it matters
If a firm reads “this directory was cited next to our competitor” as proof that the directory caused the recommendation, it may invest in the wrong thing. Correlation between a citation and an appearance is not evidence of causation.
Independent research has also found that citations in generative search answers do not always fully support the statements they are attached to — another reason to read them carefully (see the sources cited in What actually counts as an AI recommendation?).
How FirmRanker handles it
Where the data allows, FirmRanker records retrieved sources and cited sources separately, and keeps both distinct from any claim about influence. Source analysis is reported as association, not cause.
The distinction is discussed further in AEO for law firms: evidence versus hype.
What we still don’t know
How much weight individual providers give to particular source types when answering legal questions.
Whether patterns in cited sources are stable enough over time to guide what a firm should prioritise — something only repeated, longitudinal measurement can indicate.